When you find out, please let me know.

 

I understand originally the 1-second tick was introduced to improve battery life, but nowadays that's much less of an issue.

It is, but I imagine most users would prefer a longer battery life to a smoother sweep. If a smooth sweep, i.e. four ticks per second, shortened the battery life by a factor of four - I'm not sure it would, maybe it would be less - I wouldn't like that in my watch.

 

It is, but I imagine most users would prefer a longer battery life to a smoother sweep. If a smooth sweep, i.e. four ticks per second, shortened the battery life by a factor of four - I'm not sure it would, maybe it would be less - I wouldn't like that in my watch.

I worked for Energizer corporate a ways back, and can vouch that battery life is non-linear, so your hunch is correct - ticking four times per second wears out a battery MORE than 4x faster.

 

I asked this before and the answer was simple that it greatly reduced battery life. Don’t know by how much or what the “truth is but seemed reasonable to me. Watch battery is much smaller than a couple double aa batteries like my wall clock at work takes

 

I asked this before and the answer was simple that it greatly reduced battery life. Don't know by how much or what the "truth is but seemed reasonable to me. Watch battery is much smaller than a couple double aa batteries like my wall clock at work takes

That's about it. A continuously running motor, similar to the one found in wall clocks, would eat the battery pretty quickly.

The Bulova 262 kHz 3-hand movement (ticks 8 times a second) takes a battery more than twice the size of a conventional 32kHz crystal movement (once a second). Its battery is typically done in 2-3 years.

 

If the watch is solar/kinetic kind, wouldn't the "reduced battery life" be trivial issue if issue at ALL? Why doesn't Citizen/Seiko have that feature? That said, I do remember my OLD Seiko chronograph watch with smooth chrono second hand.

 

Good q. I imagine the faster charge/discharge cycle would deplete the accumulator/capacitor more quickly, and rely on the watch being lit much more that it currently needs.

Some chrono movements have 1 Hz running hands and 4-5 Hz chrono hands. As long as the chrono isn't run continuously, this seems like a good balance. Accuracy when you need it, power reserve when you don't.

 

It's still about power.

But hey, think of it like this. Back before quartz, a deadbeat seconds complication was a special sort of thing. Instead of a watch's seconds hand ticking five, six, etc. times a second, it was just once. What glorious timekeeping possibilities!

So I would just imagine that it's a cool thing instead. [emoji106]

 

It's about lack of demand for a feature that would mean more trips to the battery change shop. I suspect most owners would not notice the difference in second hand movement.

FWIW the stepped second hand was initially advertised as a feature on then new quartz watches. At the time a few mechanical watches had the expensive feature that showed precisely when the second changed. It quickly became commonplace.

 

Seiko Spring drive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Seiko Spring drive?

Yes, I know they exist. The question is why sweeping quartz seconds aren't more commonplace. Especially when there are quite pricey quartz watches out there (e.g. various Tag Heuers, etc.). A smoother sweep would increase the luxury feel of such watches quite a bit.

 

Probably a lack of market demand. The average consumer wouldn't care about how smoothly the second hand sweeps, and the reduced battery life would look unfavourable on a spec sheet when comparing between different models. Most collectors are primarily into mechanicals, so even in the enthusiast market there wouldn't be a lot of demand.

 

Don't be surprised that there're presence of consumers out there who wants "sweeping seconds mechanical behaviour" eye candy yet quartz watch slim build that wraps around there wrists.

 

I have a Pagani Design PD1654 https://www.paganidesignwatch.com/pagani-design-pd-1654 which runs a 4 ticks per second Seiko VH65. I don't understand why there aren't more watches with this movement. I mean, it isn't because they are expensive...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It's probably because those movements are slightly janky for Seiko standards. The hands jump when the chrono is reset and after time the hands slip and wont reset to 0. Mine are slightly off on my Seiko Motorsport (8t67) and there's no way to do an easy adjustment like on regular quartz chronos

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Check out the Newmark Field 52 here:

Newmark Watch Company - 52 Field Watch

newmarkwatchcompany.com

It uses a Seiko VH31A quartz movement which ticks 4 times per second. This ends up looking like a lower beat mechanical movement and is a perfect fit for this older style field watch. I own this watch, and it is lovely. Can't figure out why more brands don't use this movement. According to the Newmark website, it uses
Battery type SR920SW / 371 with 2 year life.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Check out the Newmark Field 52 here:

Newmark Watch Company - 52 Field Watch

newmarkwatchcompany.com

It uses a Seiko VH31A quartz movement which ticks 4 times per second. This ends up looking like a lower beat mechanical movement and is a perfect fit for this older style field watch. I own this watch, and it is lovely. Can't figure out why more brands don't use this movement. According to the Newmark website, it uses
Battery type SR920SW / 371 with 2 year life.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Checked out a Youtube video of it, and like most other faster sec hand movement watches it seems "twitchy" to me, and not appealing. The click, click, click of my Casio once per second feels calmer, perhaps because it's closer to heart rhythm. I get the appeal of a truly smooth movement, sort of graceful, but the multiples per sec where you see the ticks somehow aren't personally preferable to once per sec.

 

We may as well list here the watches with such movement that aren't chronographs. I'm aware of these five, all powered by the Seiko VH31:

Newark 52 (38mm)
Vario Eclipse (38mm, sold out)
Wolbrook Skindiver World Time (40mm)
Kingsbury Monarch (42mm)
WMT W20 (35mm)
LMM-01 Field Watch (38mm)

Edit: added the LMM

 

We may as well list here the watches with such movement that aren't chronographs. I'm aware of these five, all powered by the Seiko VH31:
Newark 52 (38mm)
Vario Eclipse (38mm, sold out)
Wolbrook Skindiver World Time (40mm)
Kingsbury Monarch (42mm)
WMT W20 (35mm)
LMM-01 Field Watch (38mm)
Edit: added the LMM

Another 4 beat per second quartz movement is the ISA 9500-1010. Used in the Smiths Seafire PRS-37. Maratac used it before as well.

 

I have some quartz watches with smooth sweeping second hands, including Seikos with 5S42 and 5S21 movements (4 steps per second, smoothed out to seemless appearance by running the second hand gear through a viscous dampening mechanism) and a Bulova 262kHz (16 steps per second, not 8 as a previous poster had said). The Bulova has a bigger cell than most quartz watches, though I note its CR2016 is the same as my old Longines VHP uses. Of course, the Longines gets 10 years out of that battery, whereas the Bulova gets two or three. The Seikos with their 32kHz oscillators and 4-steps-and-a-dampening-mechanism trick manage to get a good 5 years out a normal SR927SW.

As others have said, it's mostly about the battery drain. The very ealiest Beta 21 quartz movements had beautifully smooth second hands and batteries that lasted a year. I also agree with what others have said about their being very little consumer demand for smooth sweeping second hands on quartz watches.

One of the things I like most about quartz watches is their precise tick (especially where each tick sees the second hand perfectly hits each marker, as with my Grand Seikos). Indeed, my favourite mechanical watch that I have ever owned was a Habring2 with a deadbeat second complication. The attachment that some mechanical watch owners have for sweeping second hands is no doubt seen as a great triumph of marketing by the Swiss watch giants, but for many years prior to the quartz revolution, watch makers had been striving to replicate (reliably) in wrist watches the same deadbeat tick that made pendulum clocks so admired as instruments of precision. To be able to mark, consistently and precisely, the start and finish of each second opens the door to the realisation of the original horological goal - the accurate measurement of time.

And since the competition for accuracy and precision has been dominated by quartz watches since the 1970s, why would brands look to sell short that achievement (and increase costs / sacrifice battery life) by going for a smooth sweeping second hand? Well, clearly some have, in order to give their watches a USP, but honestly I find the smooth sweeping second hand on my Bulova Precisionist to be a stark contradiction to the name 'precisionist'.

 

I have some quartz watches with smooth sweeping second hands, including Seikos with 5S42 and 5S21 movements (4 steps per second, smoothed out to seemless appearance by running the second hand gear through a viscous dampening mechanism) and a Bulova 262kHz (16 steps per second, not 8 as a previous poster had said). The Bulova has a bigger cell than most quartz watches, though I note its CR2016 is the same as my old Longines VHP uses. Of course, the Longines gets 10 years out of that battery, whereas the Bulova gets two or three. The Seikos with their 32kHz oscillators and 4-steps-and-a-dampening-mechanism trick manage to get a good 5 years out a normal SR927SW.

My mistake - it's 8 for some (such as their Moonwatch), but 16 for others including all the headline three-handers.

For the 8 beats-a-sec watches, they fit a smaller, more conventional 1.55v battery:

For the 16s, a bigger, more powerful 3V CR2016 battery:

The Grand Seiko 9F quartz movement ticks at twice a second, but the ticks have different dwell times - according to GS, this is to conserve battery life.

 

Are the Bulova/Citizen 262 Khz three prong quartz movements still protected by patents?

That would maybe explain why we don't see more of these.

 

You can build it with regular quartz too but there will be problems.

 

I gladly keep my Bulova sweep running all the time, it looks awesome. I recently replaced the battery (it's been a little over 2 years) and it was well worth it.

 

Becos so far only Bulova master the technology for smooth sweeping hands quartz. Other companies are still struggling. But sadly Bulova high management didn't realized how to promote this new technology Just like Xerox didn't know they are sitting on gold pot with their touch screen tech before the iPhone revolution but didn't know how to make use of it.

 

It’s still about power.

 

Being a collector of quartz, I prefer a precise 1 tick per second. I have a Bulova UHF watch and to be honest it annoys me; every time I look at it I am reminded that it is needlessly draining it's battery at a rapid pace. Even with solar power I prefer the precise 1 second tick.

 

... ...Even with solar power I prefer the precise 1 second tick.

Addition of a solar power module will probably adds more thickness to the slim quartz watch bodies, wouldn't a "purist" would feel odd with a thick watch that's Electronic?

 

I wonder why... Swatch Group didn't realize that eye candy can also be achieved from high beat quartz movements? Instead they keep exploring on colors, patterns and stylings...

 

I'm hoping that the Swiss Watch Industry developers can come out with a movement that's both traditional and modern, way more advanced than mecha-quartz, where the rotor can generate enough power to run the electronic system, and both easily serviceable as well. Such as energy charged into a removable battery, while the other moving parts, are components removable and replaceable.
Swatch watches had always been a technology development platform, while Tissot is the next to employ the stable new engineering movements. Should Ronda can churn up such movement as well, Bulova/Citizen would not be the only brand to go for such high beat frequency eye candy...

 

I remember when quartz watches first appeared and the ticking second hand was a really cool new feature never seen before.

 

Rolex and Omega were both doing dead-beat mechanical watches in the 50s. Others probably were as well.

 

I think another benefit of UHF is noise.

We have a quartz wall clock on our sons wall that runs on 2 AA's, the last time I changed them is when I noticed the hand sweeps, and then thought about my Timex and realized how annoyingly loud the wall clock would be if it ticked instead of swept.

I have the 96B257 and I love the fact that it I won't have to adjust the time on it until it dies, and I don't have any issues with pulling the back off and changing the battery.

 

The answer is because no one is clamoring a for a sweep second quartz. Why would I want it? I have a number of quartz watches and never thought to myself, "gee if this quartz watch only had a sweeping second hand it would be real swell". I do however own a Bulova quartz that sweeps.

 

Literally the only reason I’d be interested in this would be so that I don’t have to obsess over the second hand landing exactly on each marker. This is the only reason I don’t like quartz and it’s becoming the main reason I will sacrifice accuracy for the apparently smoother motion of mechanical. Maybe I have OCD.

I’m living in the affordable spectrum here which is why I’m probably seeing so many watches with misaligned second hands. When I order a quartz watch I know the first thing I will look at is the second hand placement and I know it will be a return if it doesn’t line up.

If it aligns perfectly I have no problem with it. I think quartz is sensible, logic tells me it is obviously superior to mechanical, and I’m ready to embrace it. It’s just that it feels like in the short time I’ve been into this, in the price bracket I’ve been in, the automatic watches feel higher quality than the quartz options. Maybe it’s just the weight, they feel more substantial. Less or no plastic and I don’t have to worry about that second hand hitting the dots.

 

If it aligns perfectly I have no problem with it. I think quartz is sensible, logic tells me it is obviously superior to mechanical, and I'm ready to embrace it. It's just that it feels like in the short time I've been into this, in the price bracket I've been in, the automatic watches feel higher quality than the quartz options. Maybe it's just the weight, they feel more substantial. Less or no plastic and I don't have to worry about that second hand hitting the dots.

You need a Longines VHP my friend. Hits the markers every time and weighs like a brick.

 

My Bulova's satisfy my need for the "electric sweep".......

 

To me the main benefit of UHF movements is not even accuracy.

With a sweeping second hand, you no longer have to worry if it hits the indices all around the chapter ring. This, I just can't stand.